[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkey or a filtering proxy?

Tony Chang tony at ponderer.org
Sat Sep 10 11:32:38 EDT 2005


On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 05:11:34PM +0100, drac wrote:
> My point isn't actually to rebut all of your merits of Greasemonkey.
> For me, the biggest win has been the fact that Greasemonkey allows DOM
> level Javascript based manipulation and XPath queries, something
> currently unsupported by Privoxy (or any other server side proxy that
> I know). Could a filtering proxy support such things? I'm sure it
> could.

I agree that this is the strongest feature of GM over Privoxy.  However,
a proxy wouldn't be able to provide this without being detected.  If
you're just injecting a script tag, the site can detect that javascript
has been injected.  You could then try to remove their alter detection
script, but then an ugly arms race ensues.

Another advantage is being able to leverage Firefox to a greater extent. 
Things like GM_setValue and GM_openInTab spring to mind.

It's also easier to implement as a Firefox extension rather than as a
proxy filter.  I believe Aaron tried the proxy filter approach as well.

Are there benefits to implementing the same functionality of GM as a
proxy server?  Yes, and I would love to see a working example.  It would
probably fit a different use case as it has different strengths and
weaknesses.

Tony

-- 
Tony Chang
http://ponderer.org


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list